Page images

ROBERTS, EMMA SEGRUE, Penryn, fancy shopkeeper. Ct. Truro. May 4. RICHARDS, W. G., Ynysddu, boot dealer. Ct. Newport, Mon. May 3. SINGLETON, JOHN SIMPSON (trading as Singleton and Son), Lancastor,

general dealer. Ct. Preston. May 5. SMITH, HERBERT, Waterloo, plumber. Ct. Liverpool. May 5. STACKMAN, FRANCIS EDWARD, Lambourn, farmer. Ct. Newbury. May 2. SHORROCK, JOHN ISHERWOOD, Carmarthen, surgeon dentist. Ct. Car

marthen. May 5. SURGEY, CORNELIUS, and SURGEY, ARTHUR (trading as C. Surgey and

Son), Birmingham, coal merchants. Ct. Birningham. May 6. Thomas, REES, Aberkenfig, late grocer. Ct. Cardiff. May 4. THACKRAY, CHARLES, Guiseley, carter. Ct. Leeds. May 5. TROTMAN, WILLIAM ROBERT, Newbury. Ct. Newbury.. May 3. TOBIN, ATHWOULD WALTER, late Mile End-rd, auctioneer. Ct. Poole,

May 5. Thomas, THOMAS, Porth, insurance agent. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystrady

fodwg, and Porth, May 5. WARD, MARY, High Green, farmer, widow. Ct. Barnsley. May 4. WINDER, JOHN, Parkgate, carting contractor. Ct. Sheffield., May 4.

Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, May 2. JOHNSON, JACK, Kew Bridge, fruit salesman. Ct. Brentford. April 26.

PUGSLEY, HENRY (trading as Thomas Pugsley and Co.), Newport, ship

store merchant. Ct, Newport, Mon. May 6. ROTHWELL, THOMAS WILLIAM (late trading as the British Automobile

Supply Company), Park-la, motor agent. Ct. High Court. May 4. ROWSON, CECIL, Tooley-st, produce agent. Ct. High Court. May 4. ROBERTS, EMMA SEGRUE, Penryn, fancy shopkeeper. Ct. Truro. May 4. SINGLETON, JOHN SIMPSON (trading as Singleton and Son), Lancaster,

general dealer. Ct. Preston. May 6. STANLEY, WILLIAM, Calstock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth and East,

Stonehouse. May 4 SERCOMBE, GEORGE, Dunsford, licensed victualler. Ct. Exeter. May 4. SHORROCK, JOHN SHERWOOD, Carmarthen, surgeon dentist. Ct. Car.

marthen. May 5. SMITH, HERBERT, Waterloo, plumber. Ct. Liverpool, May 5. TROTMAN, WILLIAM ROBERT, Newbury. Ct. Newbury. May 3. Thomas, Thomas, Porth, insurance agent. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystrady

fodwg, and Porth. May 5. TRACKRAY, CHARLES, Guiseley, carter. Ct. Leeds. May 5. TARLING, FREDERICK, Southend-on-Sea, greengrocer. Ct. Chelmsford.

May 3. THOMAS, F. G., late Sidcup, licensed victualler. St. Croydon. May 3. THOMAS, REES, Aberkenfig, late grocer. Ct. Cardiff. May 4. WALKER. CHARLES HENRY described in the receiving order as Harry

Walker), late Park-pl, St. James, Westminster. Ct. High Court.

May 4.
WARD, Mary, High Green, farmer, widow. Ct. Barnsley. May 4.
W CODS, ERNEST SAMUEL, Gorleston, builder. Ct. Great Yarmouth.

May 4.
WINDER, JOHN, Parkgate, carting contractor. Ct. Sheffield. May 4,


ELPHINSTONE, LESLIE, Byward-st, editor. Ct. High Court. Feb. 10.

Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, Feb. 10. COHEN, ESTHER (described in the receiving order and trading as E.

King and Sons), Bow-rd, tailor. Ct. High Court Feb. 14.

Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, April 21. PORTER, WILLIAM, late Withington, farmer. Ct. Hereford. April 19.


GAZETTE, MAY 9. TAITORSALL, JAMES, Rochdale, late beerseller. Ct. Rochdale. May 5.


BIRTHS. CLEAVER.-On the 4th inst., at West Derby, Liverpool, the wife of W. E.

Cleaver, of Penang, Straits Settlements, Barrister-at-law, of a son. SALAMAN.-On the 30th ult., at Little Odell, near Minehead, Somerset,

the wife of Clement Salaman, of the Inner Temple, of a son.


Askew, THOMAS, Sedbergh, grocer. Ct. Kendal. May 2.
ALLINGTON, FRANK, la te Birmingham, grocer. Ct. Birmingham. May 2.
ADAMS, HENRY, Langton-rd, North Brixton, oilman. Ct. High Court.

May 1.
BRIDGES, GEORGE, St. James'-st, gentleman.. Ct. High Court. May 2.
BAILEY, WALTEP. John, Coventry, toolmaker. Ct. Coventry. May 2.
BOTT, PERCY, Burton-on-Trent, temperance hotel keeper. Ct.

Trent. May 3.
CASEM ORE, JAMES (trading as Casemore and Sons), Victoria-rd, Kilburn,

builder. Ct. High Court. May 3 CHARLESWORTH, HAROLD, late Baker-st, incorporated accountant. Ct.

High Court. May 1. COHEN, ARTHUR, late Regent-st, managing director of the American Filin

Trading Corporation. Ct. High Court. May 2. COATES, JOHN WILLIAM FALCONER, Boroughbridge, boot dealer. Ct. York; :

May 1. Cooper, WILLIAM John, Bradford, painter. Ct. Bradford. May 2. DALBY, JOHN, Hampton-rd, Leytonstone, clerk. Ct. High Court. May 3. DENFORD, HARRY, Mirfield, saddler. Ct. Dewsbury. May 3. EP GRAVE, ELI, Bushey, baker. Ct. St. Albans. .May 3. FODEN, ALLEN, Stechford, baker. Ct, Birmingham. May 3. GOLDBERG, BERTRAM EDWARD. (trading as Bertram and Co.), Oxford-st,

mantle manufacturer. Ct. High Court. May 2. GRIFFIN, CLIFTON Benbow, Rochester, cement engineer. Ct. Rochiester. }

May 2. GORDON. Ellis, Kingston-upon-Hull, cabinet maker. Ct. Kingston-upon-,

Hull. May 3. HART. JOHN, Shaftesbury-rd, Hammersmith, accounts clerk. Ct. High

Court. May 1. Hawkey. REGINALD CHARLES, New Cross-rd, Deptford, house furnisher.

Ct. High Court. _April 29. HANDLEY, WILLIAM, Frodsham, farmer. Ct. Warrington. May 3. HALL, HUGH FRANCIS, Ashford, nurseryman. Ct. Canterbury. May 1. HOPKINS, WILLIAM, late Aberkenfis, mason. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystrady

fodwg, and Porth. May 3. KASSINGER, JOHN HERMAN, late Saint Leonards-st, Bromley-by-Bow,

baker. Ct. High Court. May 3. LOTINGA, WILLIAM, late Strand, journalist. Ct. High Court. May 1, LAWTON, WILLIAM HARVEY, Glossop, schoolmaster. Ct. Ashton-under

Lyne and Stalybridge. April 28. McCRUM, WILLIAM, Surbiton. Ct. Kingston, Surrey. May 2. MOORE, Thomas MARRIOTT, Manchester, builder. Ct. Manchester. May 3. OPPERMANN, EMIL LAURENCE, late Ashworth-mansions, Elgin-at. Ct. High

Court. May 1. PRATT, JOHN Actox, Builth Wells, watchmaker, Ct. Newtown. May 2. PHILLIPS, THOMAS GWILYM, Llanelly, builder. Ct. Carmarthen. May 1. PHILLIPS, RACHEL (trading as F. A. Phillips), London-wall, furniture

dealer, widow. Ct. High Court. May 1. ROGERS, WALTER Moore, Bristol, fruiterer. 'Ct. Bristol. May 2. RANBY, JAMES WILLIAM, Rotherham, chip potato vendor. Ct. Sheffield.

May 3. SELFE, Tox EAGLES, Highworth, seedsman. Ct. Swindon. May 3. SAALER, ADOLPH, St. George's-rd, West Hampstead, wine merchant. Ct.

High Court. May 1.
SHEPHARD, FREDERICK CHARLES, Great Grimsby, glass merchant. Ct,

Great Grimsby. May 2.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS GRIFFITH, Ystalyfera, grocer.

Ct. Neath and Aberavon. May 2. WERTHEIMER, MAURICE, Stirling-mansions, Canfield-grdns, Hampstead,

commercial traveller. Ct. High Court. May 2.




(Absolate or Contingent)


Good prices given for approved Securities.


Upon Security of Life Interests, Reversions, &c


Upon first-class properties considered.


GAZETTE, May 9. Aston, EDWARD, West Bromwich; grocer. Ct. West Bromwich. May 4. APPLEBY, THOMAS PERCY, late Cardiff, brickworks manager. Ct. Newport,

Mon. May 2. BATTEN, ROBERT EDWIN, Llanrwst, innkeeper. Ct. Portmadoc and

Festiniog. May 6. BURBIDGE, PERCY FRANK, late Paignton, proprietor of skating rink. Ct.

Plymouth and East Stonehouse. May 6. CEANTREY, ALFRED, and CHANTREY, WILLIAM HENRY (trading as Chantrey

Brothers), Buxton, gentlemen's outfitters. . Ct. Stockport. May 6. EDWARDS, ALFRED HENRY, late Carey-st, company promoter. Ct. High

Court. May 5. GALLOWAY, ROBERT ALEXANDER, Drive-mansions, Fulham-rd. Ct. High

Court. May 4. GINN, HENRY WILLIAM, late Bloomsbury, cyclists' outfitter. Ct. Kingston,

· Surrey. April_29. HENSON, THOMAS, Peterborough, pig dealer. Ct. Peterborough. May 6. HARTLEY, WRIGHT, Bradford, commercial traveller, Ct. Bradford.

May 5. JACKSON, FRANK SAGAR_(late trading as F. S. Jackson and Co., and as

Standmore Suits). Leeds, tailor. Ct Leeds. May 4. JONES, RICHARD, Moelfre, grocer. Ct, Bangor. May 6. KETTLEWELL, CHARLES, Great Coates, farmer. Ct. Great Grimsby.

May 5. LUPTON, JAMES, Wrexham, undertaker. Ct. Wrexham and Llangollen.

May 3. LOVE, THOMAS WRIGAT, Mansfield, fruiterer. Ct. Nottingham. May 4. PoweLL, CHARLES THOMAS,. Aberbargoed, fruiterer. Ct. Tredegar.

May 4.

[blocks in formation]





[ocr errors]

& ANOTHER (Appellants),

Petitioners 1911.

Jan. 4, 17, and 18. | KESHO PROSAD SINGH,
Judgment March 2.

Opposite Party Cirii

Procedure Code (Act V. of 1908), Order 41, rr. 5.6– Erecution, Stay of - Sufficient Cause -- Onus of Proof Security, Enforcement of which doubtful if should be

accepted. HELD, that the security could not be accepted as sufficient.

Mr. Sinha, Dr. Rash Bebary Ghose, and Babus Ram Chandra Mitra and Mohini Mohan Chatterjee for the petitioners.

Mr. B. C. Mitra and Babus Provash Chandra Mitra, Monmatba Nath Mukherjee, and Norendra Chandra Bose for the Opposite Party.

Mr. G. H. B. Kenrick, K.C. (Advocate.General) for the Secretary of State for India in Council (amicus curiæ).

The judgment of the Court was as follows:

MOOKERJEE, J.-This rule was granted upon an application under Order 41, r. 5.... In so far as the first branch of this contention is concerned, I am unable to uphold it as well. founded. As pointed out in "The Laws of England, " edited by Lord Halsbury, Vol. 13, sect. 537, a party cannot by representation any more than by other meaos raise against him an estoppel so as to create a state of things which he is under a legal disability not to do. No person can by his conduct or otherwise waive or renounce a right to perform a public duty or estop himself from insisting that it is his right to do so.

The Calcutta Weekly Notes.




Week-Similarity of the Names of DEYE8 D. WOOD AND OTHEB .-Com


49 pany Debentures - Receiver IRISH NOTEB......

32 appointed by debenture-holders- UOMMENTS ON CASES.........................

68 Receiver agent of debenture-holders THE CONVEYANCER......... -Liabi,ity to pay remuneration 404 OCCASIONAL NOTE8.........



YET REPORTED..............................
LAW LIBBABY .........


Limited partnersbip-Winding up PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.-- Topics 69
-Limited Partnership Act 1907 (7 OBIMINAL LAW AND THI JOBINDIO-
Edw. 7, c. 24)


Quarter Sessions-Russian Prisons 62 Will-Executor-Appropriation of

PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS 62 securities by executor to himself as

COUNTY COURTS.-Sittings of tho legatee-Ademption

411 Courts--Recent Decision : Owners of Re EARL OF SHEFFIELD; RYAN U. Steamship Lord Antrim e. Macauley 68

BRISTOW,- Will - Construction - GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.-The Ethics Bequest of the amount of one of Advocacy in an Unjuet Causeyear's wages "-Servants (indoor Inns of Court Mission : Annual and outdoor)............

412 Meeting-International Arbitration KING'S BENOH DIVISION

-Beirs-at-Law and Next of Kin-

Appointments under the Joint Stock QARLTON ILLUSTRATORS AND Winding-ap Acts-Oreditors under

ANOTHER COLEMAN AND Co. Estates in Chancory - Oroitora LIMITED.- Copyright - Drawing

under 22 & 28 Vict c. 35

63 Assignment of copyright-Repro. LAW SOCIETIES.-Solicitors' Benevoduction of coloured enlargement

lent Association : Anoiversary without consent of author

413 Festival-Portsmouth and District CLAYTON . LE ROY IT FILS.-Sale Law Clerks' Association --The Blue

of goods-Market overt-Custom of Bag-Union Society of London ...... 67 City of London-Sale in auction NOTRS AND QUERIES.........................

69 room-Demand and refusal of OORRESPONDENCE

69 return of goods after writ

419! LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. - Law SEAL (app.) 6. TRUSTEES OF THE Students' Debating Society : Apnual BRITISH ORPHAN ASYLUM (resps). Dinner - Students' Societies

70 Factory - Laundries Orphan THR COURTS AND OOURT PAPER4.-. asylum for children – Asylum Rota of Begistrars-Prison Eag.

maintained by public subscriptions 424 land : Prisons for Habitual BROWN (app.) v. CROSSLEY (resp.).


70 Motor-car — Use on highway at LEGAL OBITUARY.-Mr. E. Herbert night-Use of car without rear Draper-Mr. Robert Lunn...... 71 light-Conviction-Indorsement of THE GAZETT RS.................

71 licence...........

......... 429' BIRTH8, MARRIAORS, AND DBATHS 72

The Law and tge Lawyers

[ocr errors]




Post Box 251, Ualcutta. 76, Elizabeth Street, Sydney.

(8/2, Hastings Street.)

NEARLY eighteen months ago judgment was delivered in the Missouri Courts prohibiting the Standard Oil Company and some of its subsidiary companies from continuing an illegal combination in restraint of trade contrary to the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890. Under that Act all contracts and combinations in restraint of trade are made illegal, and anybody who monopolises or attempts to monopolise any industry is declared guilty of a misdemeanour. The Supreme Court of the United States has now, with one dissentient, upheld the decision of the court below, and has declared the operations of the Standard Oil Company and its subsidiary companies to be a violation of the statute. From the reports published in this country at present of the decision of the Supreme Court it would seem that the present judgments of that tribunal do not go as far as some of their rulings in the past, where it had been laid down that the law of 1890 covered every contract or combination in restraint of trade. The present decision, however, seems to show that whether or not any contract or combination is within the purview of the prohibition created by the statute must depend upon its reasonableness.

[ocr errors]

To Readers and Correspondents. All communications must bo authenticated by the name and address of tho writer, not

necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent

delay, be address d to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES." Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the

Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose. The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the

proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form ihoy may think desirable. Apart from any express agroement that may be made,

contributions are only received and considered on these conditions, Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., sbould be kept distinct, and addressed to the

Publisher, Mr. HOBADI Cox, “Law Times" Omice, Windsor House, Bream's
buildings, E.O.

United Kingdom.

For One Year ....................

...L2 14 0 | For Ono Year ............................£230 For Hall-Year........................... 1 7 0 For Hall-Year...

1 1 0 Foreign. WITH REPORTS.


............................£3 0 0 For One Year...........................£2 44 For Hall-Year.. 1 10 For Hall-Year..

1 2 3 Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the Law TIMES, price 59. 6. LAW

TIXE8 REPORT8, price 38. 6d. The Publisber undertakes the binding of the Law TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at the following rates:

PER VOLUME. Law Times in half call, omico pattern ......

.................. 58. 60. LAW Times REPORTS, ditto,


......... 58. Od. LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto, with Statutes at end............ 59. 60. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES OMco, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.

TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lices of 30 words or loss £ 8. d. | One page ................................ 1000 than 80 words in body type ... 3 6 Half page...

5 0 0 Each additional line......

6 One Column

3 10 0 Advortisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent, andor

acale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under. Paragraph Advertisements 18. per line, mininum 58. No series discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this omico, should remit 6d. additional

to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach iho office not later than ive o'clock on Thursday afternoon

and must be accompanied by a remittance, Post-Omco Ordors payable to HOBAJR Cox.

Vol. CXXXI.-No. 3555.


WHETHER or not this decision will have any wide practical effect, so far as the huge trust created by the Standard Oil Company is concerned, may be open to considerable doubt. Since 1865 the heads of this combination have set to work slowly, but surely, to acquire this oil monopoly. How many subordinate companies are under the control of the parent company incorporated in New Jersey it is difficult to say, but it is clear that the combination thus existing is practically unique, and its operations and power of control exist throughout the civilised world. No doubt the Government of the United States, fortified by the present decision of the Supreme Court, will be able to prevent any open violation of the anti-trust law; but, as the Times points out, "every

[ocr errors][merged small]

[May 20, 1911.

country has tried its hand at putting down monopolies and and the interest of the facts in issue than on the financial maintaining or restoring competition, and generally with outcome. In this category would fall the proceedings against indifferent success"; or, as another of our contemporaries Mylius for his gross defamation of His Majesty, the revelahas tersely stated the point, the State can put down tions in ex-Sergeant EDMONDSon's action against the Times, monopolies, but it cannot compel competition. It will be Mr. CHURCHILL's action against Mr. SPENCER, and that in interesting to see in the future the ultimate result of this which Baron DE FOREST was concerned. These and other decision of the Supreme Court.

sensational cases have occupied a lot of valuable time, and in

very many of them it is easy to see that the point underAn important decision for the guidance of justices was given lying the dicta of Mr. Justice LawBANCE was closely in the

minds of the parties, and that they were striving to make on Wednesday last by the Divisional Court in Rex v. Martin. A defendant had pleaded guilty at petty sessions to six

money by the exercise of a new art, the success of which charges of obtaining money by false pretences, and thereupon

would represent many months of the work ordinarily required

by average individuals of the class concerned. he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each of the first two charges, and three months' imprisonment on each of the other four charges, all the sentences to run consecutively. TESTATORS, who may

he minded to bestow some benefit upon In 1867 it was laid down in Reg.v. Cutbush (16 L.T. Rep. 282; a friend by way of annuity, are not infrequently wishful to. L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 79) that under certain circumstances justices avoid the possibility of the capital sum being lost by the in petty sessions bad power to pass such a second sentence, premature death of the annuitant. Where the annuitant is and, as that decision had been acted on ever since, the court a person in years or in an unsatisfactory state of health this stated that they did not feel justified in refusing to follow it. possibility frequently weighs heavily on a testator's mind. They refused, however, to extend the principle of that case in The expedient is not unfamiliar of coupling with the gift of any way, and quashed the four remaining sentences. In the annuity a direction to trustees to appropriate a certain giving justices at petty sessions power to deal with cases of sum for the purpose of meeting it, either naming such sum this kind, we do not believe it was ever intended by means of explicitly or else wording the direction in such a way as to consecutive sentences to extend their power of inflicting make the trustees the arbiter of the sum necessary for the imprisonment. In proper cases it is doubtless right that purpose. The annuity will then be declared to be charged consecutive sentences should be imposed, making in the on the appropriated sum, and, so far as the income thereof aggregate a lengthy period of imprisonment; but a power of does not provide the annuity, the trustees will be empowered this nature ought not to be intrusted to petty sessions, and to resort to the capital, and should there be a surplus it will we are glad that the Divisional Court has declined to extend become income of residue. The appropriated sum, or so the principles laid down in Reg. v. Cutbush,

much of it as remains, on the cesser of the annuity will revert

to and form a portion of the residue and be treated on that WHEN the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906 was

footing. In the writer's experience some difficulties have before Parliament we observed upon the tendency of such

arisen out of these expedients, especially where the annuitant

has lived to an unexpected age, and where the trustees in. legislation to grow in extent, and this criticism is again to be made now that the Labour Party have introduced a Bill

making the original appropriation have erred on the side of.

economy. It is conceived that the growing dislike of mortgage to amend this Act. The idea now is that children should be

investments, so noticeable of late years, will in practice sed during holidays as well as during term time, and it is

rather tond to increase these difficulties. In the north of argued i hat as children's physical conditions improve during England considerable numbers of these appropriated sums school attendance and deteriorate again in the holidays the

have been absorbed in bygone years in mortgages at compataxpayer must feed them throughout the year. The argu

ratively high rates of interest. The position has changed ment can with equal force be carried further and the same children should be clothed and housed by the aid of resources

and trustees have been calling in these loans, and, with a other than those of their parents. No responsible person can

drop in the rate of interest, the resort to capital has very

often resulted in extensive reductions in the sum approview, without indignation anything which can cause suffering priated. It would be interesting if some of our solicitor to childhood, but it is perfectly plain to those who (to use a

readers would kindly state what their experiences have been homely phrase) do not allow their “hearts to run away with their heads" that such concessions would create greater

with these annuities out of appropriated funds, and whether

on the whole they find this system more advantageous to all national evils than they mitigate, and would only develop parties than the simple purchase of an annuity from the further the trait whereby persons look to others to shoulder

Government or some public company. It is a common their burdens and perform their duties. From such stock

experience that it is the testatrix of small means who most no nation will raise up a generation capable of continuing frequently desires to give annuities to old friends and at the traditions of manliness and self-respect.

same time to do nothing to deprive her relations of the

family funds. It is not easy to reconcile both aspirations. The aphorism of Mr. Justice LAWRANCE to the effect that libel actions are becoming quite an art, and that the profits derivable from them exceed those earned by hard work, has SIMILARITY OF THE NAMES OF COMPANIES. attracted much attention, and it is not possible, unfortunately, No company is permitted to carry on its business under a name to overlook the fact that the history of the last sittings gives so similar to that of a company previously established, and much ground for the observation. There were some thirty carrying on a business of the like description, as to be calcucases of libel entered, and the damages awarded in some lated to deceive the public. As was said by Lord Watson in of these were very substantial. Sir John Benn's appeal

the well-known case of North Cheshire and Manchester Brewery against a verdict for £12,000 was successful, but the further

Company Limited v. Manchester Brewery Company Limited (79 appeal to the House of Lords is still pending. Passing

L. T. Rep. 645, at p. 647; (1899) A. C. 83, at p. 87); the prior this by, there are, however, actions against newspapers in

company are exposed to every possible inconvenience which whichi

can arise to their trade from the fact of a rival company startvery substantial sums—in one case £5000—have been recovered. Then certain "society” .

ing afresh in the same trade in the same locality and under cases have resulted in

substantially the same name with themselves." But notwithheavy damages. In West v: West the plaintiff got £1250,

standing the privilege intended to be afforded by sub-sect. 1 of subject, however, to appeal. The interest in other actions

sect. 8 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, for defamation turned more on the personalities involved c. 69)—which is a considerably wider measure of protection


than that enjoyed by individuals-various companies appear Farwell in the same case, is to look at the words and see if to have succeeded, from time to time, in obtaining registration the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur applies. Acquaintance with in defiance of its terms. That the protection is wider is the reported decisions, no less than with the statutory provisions, plainly manifested by what was said by Mr. Justice Joyce in becomes, therefore, a sine qua non when a company's name is the case of Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers' Association being chosen by its founders; and a brief examination of some Limited and John Cash and Sons Limited v. Harwood, Cash, and of the more recent of the cases may not be without interest. Co. Limited (97 L. 1'. Rep. 45; (1907) 2 Ch. 184). His Lord- As is pointed out in Buckley on the Companies Acts (9th ship there laid down that a new company, with a title of which edit., p. 14), the jurisdiction of the court rests either upon a personal name forms part, has not the natural right of an fraud or upon property ; not that there is property in a name, individual born with that name to trade under that name, but that the use of a name in which another carries on business where there is a possibility of confusion' with an old company: will deceive and will affect property by diverting costomers to The law is that an individual cannot be absolutely restrained the person taking the name. Where this is not the case where from carrying on business in his own name. He can only be is no jurisdiction. Several authorities are cited in support of restrained from so doing without taking reasonable precautions that proposition, among others, Street v. Union Bank of Spain to prevent his business or goods being confounded with those and England (53 L. T. Rep. 262; 30 Ch. Div. 156). The of another person : (see J. and J. Cash Limited v. Joseph Cash, principles applicable in the determination of the question 86 L. T. Rep. 211).

whether the name of a company is likely to deceive, having The sub-section above mentioned provides as follows: “A regard to the existence or use of another name, are closely company may not be registered by a name identical with that analogous to those applicable in cases of the passing off of by which a company in existence is already registered, or so goods, when the court has to determine whetber a trade name nearly resembling that name as to be calculated to deceive, or description or a description of a particular class of goods is except where the company in existence is in the course of being likely to deceive, though it is possible that for certain purposes dissolved and signifies its consent in such manner as the the application of the principles may vary: (per Mr. Justice registrar requires." Substantially the sub-section is a re. Parker in British Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited v. Vew enactment of the provisions contained in sect. 20 of the Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited, 97 L. T. Rep. 201; (1907) Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), so that the 2 Ch. 312). protection thereby conferred has been in operation for almost In the case referred to above of North Cheshire and Manhalf a century. It is, therefore, somewhat singular that, despite chester Brewery Company Limited v. Manchester Brewery Comthe prohibition against registration, many cases should have pany Limited, two brewery companies named the “ Manchester come before the courts in which it has been decided that the Brewery Company Limited” and the “North Cheshire Brewery name adopted by a company, and not objected to by the Company Limited” were in 1888 carrying on business at Manregistrar, so nearly resembles that of an existing company as to chester and Macclesfield respectively, but their districts, to be calculated to deceive.

some extent, overlapped. In 1897 a new company was formed It is true that the oversight can easily be remedied by with the name of the “ North Cheshire and Manchester Brewery causing the name to be changed, pursuant to the power given Company Limited” to take over and carry on the business of by sub-sect. 2 of sect. 8 of the Act of 1908, which contains the North Cheshire Company Limited. It was held by the the following provisions : “If a company, through inadvertence House of Lords, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, or otherwise, is, without such consent as aforesaid "—that is to that the Manchester Brewery Company Limited was entitled to say, the consent referred to in sub-sect. 1—"registered by a an injunction to restrain the new company from using or name identical with that by which a company in existence is carrying on business under its proposed name, as being previously registered, or so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive, although there was no evidence of calculated to deceive, the first-mentioned company may, with fraudulent intention, and the word " Manchester" was not used the sanction of the registrar, change its name.” But the as the first word of the new company's name. Similarly, in disadvantages of introducing any such alteration after a the case of Standard Bank of South Africa v. Standard Bank company has once started business are so obvious that they (25 Times L. Rep. 420; 26 Rep. Pat. Cas. 310), an injunction render the expediency of avoiding the necessity for so doing was granted restraining the defendant company from carrying very clearly indicated. The promoters of a company having on business under its then name or any other name so nearly selected an appropriate name under which it is to carry on its resembling the plaintiff company's name as to be calculated to business, and then caused the company to be duly registered deceive. by that name, it is highly important that it should not be liable So likewise an injunction was granted in the case of Ouvalu to be disturbed in its possession thereof because of the name Ceylon Estates Limited v. L'va Ceylon Rubber Estates Limited being subsequently discovered to be calculated to deceive on (ubi sup.). The plaintiff company, whose business was that account of its similarity to that of another company. Too of growing tea and rubber, was registered in 1896. The much reliance on the caution exercised in the office of the defendant company, in ignorance of the existence of the registrar to obviate that inevitable consequence is, therefore, plaintiff company, was registered in 1910 for the purpose of unadvisable. Consideration of the decisions of the courts on acquiring and developing a rubber estate. Although the name this subject whenever they have been reported-seldom as it of the defendant company was not spelt in the same way as the happens to be-is most essential. For sect. 8 of the Act of name of the plaintiff company, the pronunciation of both was. 1908 contains merely a direction to the registrar not to register identical, each name indicating that of the same province in a company by a name calculated to deceive. Should similarity Ceylon. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeal of names escape his vigilance, and a dame be allowed per affirmed the decision of Mr. Justice Joyce on the ground that incuriam to pass as unobjectionable, then, after registration the similarity of names was calculated to deceive, notwiththereof, the matter depends on common law rights. The cir. standing the slight variation therein by the interposition of the cumstance that a new company has been registered by a name word “rubber.” 80 nearly resembling that of a company already in existence as Another case where an injunction was granted was Panhard to be calculated to deceive will not preclude that prior company et Levassor (Société Anonyme Anciens Etablissements) v. Panhard from obtaining an injunction to restrain the new company from Levassor Motor Company Limited (85 L. T. Rep. 20; (1901) 2 carrying on business under and using the name so adopted and Ch. 513). registered. By reason of its similarity to the name of the prior Turning now to cases where an injunction has been refused, company the court will interfere. All that it has to be satisfied they mostly related to companies which had incorporated into is that the name is “ calculated to deceive."

their names words descriptive of the articles in which they The court is careful, however, to regard what has been done dealt. On that ground, they were held not entitled to claim a in former casos, in order to secure consistency, while taking monopoly of the use of such words, and ran the risk of having as a guide the spirit of sect. 8 of the Act of 1908, as can be the articles similarly described in the names of rival companies. seen from the words of the Master of the Rolls (Cozens-Hardy) It is because no such monopoly can be secured that a descriptive in one of the latest, if not the latest, of the cases—namely, Ouvah name may be registered. Such was the effect of the decision Ceylon Estates Limited v. Uva Ceylon Rubber Estates Limited (103 of Mr. Justice Parker in British Vacuum Cleaner Company L. T. Rep. 416). The first duty of the court, szid Lord Justice Limited v. New Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited (ubi sup.)

Second Sheet.

MR. JUSTICE BOYD made a strong complaint in his court on the 12th inst. as to the noise of the traffic in the streets outside the court, and as to the failure of the Dublin Corporation, notwithstanding representations made to them on more than one occasion, to put dowo a wood pavement in the streets in the vioinity of the courts. In summer, wbon the windows of the courts are opened, this inconvenience is particularly great. In fact, in one or two of the courts it is an intolerablo nuisance. A wood pavement has already been put down in Green-street, opposite the court-house there, and it is intolerable that the same course should not have been adopted with reference to the four courts. The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland has already made representations to the corporation on the subject, but without result. The corporation is the body which has the control of the streets, and is the only body which can inour the costs of providing this much-needed acoommodation.

The learned judge acted on what was said by Lord Justice Farwelt in the case of Aerators Limited v. Tollit (86 L. T. Rep. 651 ; (1902) 2 Ch. 319)—that is to say, that a company registered by a name which represents a word in common use at the date of registration, and which represents an article of commerce, cannot claim a monopoly of that name so as to prevent another company taking the word as part of its name, unless it is obvious that persons will be in fact deceived as to the identity of the two companies. The facts in the case of the British Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited (ubi sup.) were these: In 1903 the plaintiff company was registered for working a patent for the cleaning of carpets, &c., by means of a pipe, suction, and vacuum.

In 1906 the defendant company was registered for working a patent which, in respect of pipes and vacuum, was the same as that of the plaintiff company, and was not an infringement of it. Mr. Justice Parker decided that vacuum cleaner” had not acquired a secondary or subsidiary meaning; and that the word “new” sufficiently distinguished the name of the defendant company from that of the plaintiff company.

The proposition enunciated in that case has been illustrated in others more recently decided, notably in that of Electromobile Company Limited. v. British Electromobile Company Limited (98 L T. Rep. 258), where electrically propelled carriages were the plaintiff company's manufacture. It was admitted that at the formation of the company, and subsequently, the word - Electromobile" was a generic word and formed part of the language used in this country, and meant a motor-car propelled by electricity But it was contended that the evidence showed that the word had since acquired a secondary meaning denoting the motor-cars dealt in by the Electromobile Company Limited, which bad consequently become known in the trade as “ Electromobiles.” This view, however, was not accepted either by Mr. Justice Warrington or by the Court of Appeal. ... That the plaintiff's trade name of “Trade Extension Company" had not acquired a secondary meaning, as denoting the plaintiff's business, and that, therefore, the name of the defendant company, Expansion of Trade Limited,” was

not *calculated to deceive, was the conclusion arrived at by. Mr. Justice Eve in the case of Elliott v. Expansion of Trade Limited (54 S. J. 101). And where in the case of Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Limited v. Scottish National Insurance Company Limited (1909, S. C. 318; 26 Rep. Pat. Cas. 105) the plaintiff company carried on general insurance business, but not marine insurance, although by its articles it had power to do so, and the defendant company carried on marine insurance only, although by its articles it had power to undertake other insurances, it was decided by the Court of Session in Scotland that, as the businesses of general insurance and marine insurance were very different, the simi. larity of the names was not likely to deceive. A further Scotch case, in which the question as to what was the effect of the name of an individual having been embodied in the name of a company, was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. Durlop. Motor Company Limited (8 F. 1146). :). The foregoing, while not purporting to be an exhaustive epitome of the modern authorities, is probably sufficiently complete to convey to the reader a fairly adequate notion of what" has to be borne in mind when the choice of a suitable name for a new company comes up for deliberation.

The House of Lords on the 12th inst. dismissed the app?al in Murphy (Suppliant) v. The King, which raised an interesting question under the Old Age Pensions Act 1908. It is understood that the Treasury were anxious to have the question settled by the final Court of Appeal, and, acoordingly, the entire costs of the appeal were paid by the State. A woman had been allowed an old age pension by the local pension 3 committee on the basis that she was seventy years of age, and no appeal was brought within the prescribed time agaiost the decision. Subsequently the pension officer raised a question to the effect that the pensioner had not fulfilled the statutory conditions inasmuch as she had not attained the age of seventy years. The Local Government Board on appeal decided that she was not entitled to receive the pension. It was held by the Court of Appeal on the 16th Jan, that the board had jurisdiction to enter upon the rein. vestigation notwithstanding the words of sect. 7 (2) of the Act that the decision of a committee if not appealed from shall be final and conclusive. The Irish court decided further that if a person is not seventy when the application is made, the jurisdiction upon which the procedure depends does not exist, because the statutory conditions (including the condition of age) apply to the receipt as well as to the granting of a pension. It was held that a question as to the fulfilment or the continuance of the fulfilment of this condition might be raised at any time. The House of Lords unanimously upheld this decision and dismissed the appeal without calling upon the respon. dents. The argument for the appellant substantially was that, in the absence of fraud, once seventy always seventy.”

[ocr errors]

ANOTHER important decision was given by the Court of Appeal 'on the 11th inst., in the case of Sharples v. Eason and Sons Limited and others, on the question of the issue and service of writs out of the jurisdiction in actions founded on tort. It has already been decided in Ro88 v. “ Winning Postand others (86e L. T. Jour., April 29, p. 619) that where in an action for damages for libel a newevendor within the jurisdiction is joined as a defendant with the printer and publisher of the newspaper, who resides outside of the jurisdiction, and where it is shown that the newevendor within the jurisdiction is not an agent of the printer and publisher of the paper wbich is alleged to contain the libellous statement, an order giving liberty to issue and serve & concurrent writ out of the jurisdiction will be set aside. Ia Sharples' case the writ had been issued against two defendantsnamely, Eason and Sons Limited, who are newevendors in Dublin, and the proprietor of the Racing World, who resides outside of the jurisdiction. It was proved that Messrs. Eason were not the agents of the London publishers, and that they had sold the Racing World in Dublin merely as ordinary newsvendors. Both defendants entered appearances in Ireland, ard the pleadings in the case were closed. The plaintiff then discontinued the action against Mesers Eacon and Sons Limited, and served a notice of trial on the other defendant, who thereu pon moved to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of the process of the court and that Messrs. Eagon had been joined merely as a colourable defendant and for the purpose of giving jurisdiction. The court, notwithstanding the fact that ihe publisher of the Racing World had entered an appearance, stayed the action, holding that the plaintiff bad admitted, by discon. tinuing the proceedings against Messrs. Eason, that they had been joined merely for the purpose of bringiog the English defendant into the jurisdiction. The court regarded the procedure as an evasion of Order XL. of the Irish Rales of Court.

IRISH NOTES. S8461 - THE Easter Sittio gs in Dublin ended on Thursday, the 18th May, and

the Trinity Sittings will open on the lat June. It is to be feared, however, that those sittings will be very much broken up. First of all, Monday, the 5th June, being Whit Monday, is a holiday. Then, thö judges leave Dublin for London for the Coronation on Wednesday, the 21st June, and they will be absent. till ·Monday, the 26th June. So faras the Common Law work is conceroed, the Trinity Sittings end ..on, the 1st July, on which date the circuits ordinarily go out ; so that there will only be about twenty days available for this class of work in the courts' next sittings." It is probable that in view of His Majesty's visit to Ireland, which begins on the 8th July and ends on the 12th July, the summer assizes will not go out till the latter date. An Arrangement of this kiod would give an additional week's sittings in Dublin, and would obviate the necessity of the judges coming back 'from circuit for the purpose of being in Dublin wbile His Majesty is there.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Rex (Cloherty) v. Galway County Council represents another sta ze in a dispute between the local authorities in Ireland and the Imperial Exchequer. Previously to this case the county councils had been in the habit of paying, at the request of the various clerks of the peace, the expense of printing lists of quarter sessions, advertisements of dates of quarter sessions, li:ts of applicants for licences, advertisements of appointments of civil bill officers, notices of applicatioos for compensation for crimioal injuries, and lists of civil bill appeals. The expense of this printing hitherto has been incurred by the clerk of the peace of each county, and was paid without demur by the county councils. Recently the Galway County Council refused to pay these sums, and the Crown applied for a mandamus to compel them to do so, chiefly on the ground that the payments had become a national custom. The county council declined to make the payment, on the ground that there was no authority, for doing so, and that any rate payer could come forward_and object to the same. The case came before the King's Bench Divizion in February last, and it was decided that these

« EelmineJätka »